Durham v Worcester (one day cup)

smoker said:
We've got a long tail. I doubt we'd have managed much over 220-230.



Pointless argument seeing as the player who won that match was already out, and helped by a batsman who wasn't playing today. No way our tail was amassing 300

And if we'd looked at the weather forecast it would have been immediately obvious we didn't have another 40 overs.

Wessels out. Time to make a game of it?
Click to expand...

Countless numbers of Cricketers past and present say ‘play the game, not the conditions’. Whilst it isn’t raining and you have 50 overs, you’ve got to make on as if you’ve got 50 overs.

What you going on about though? The player who won that game was already out.....? We had a player who failed in that game who was unbeaten on 50 - perhaps he’d have been our match winner today? Who knows. Our tail may have wagged, who knows.
 


brandon said:
Countless numbers of Cricketers past and present say ‘play the game, not the conditions’. Whilst it isn’t raining and you have 50 overs, you’ve got to make on as if you’ve got 50 overs.

What you going on about though? The player who won that game was already out.....? We had a player who failed in that game who was unbeaten on 50 - perhaps he’d have been our match winner today? Who knows. Our tail may have wagged, who knows.
Click to expand...

It's the least worst method of getting a result in a reduced over game. We knew the crack before the match started, no use crying about it.

We had a chance to win this match at 71/5.
 
smoker said:
It's the least worst method of getting a result in a reduced over game. We knew the crack before the match started, no use crying about it.

We had a chance to win this match at 71/5.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but it’s not a perfect system is it? It still produces some absolutely farcical situations and that is why plenty people on here have voiced their opinion to that end.

I don’t see anyone crying, just pointing out that it’s a farce that Worcester have been given such a paltry target.

They were still favourites at 71/5 because the run rate was so small.
 
Anyone coming round to my view Matt Salisbury is a pie chucker?

brandon said:
Indeed, but it’s not a perfect system is it? It still produces some absolutely farcical situations and that is why plenty people on here have voiced their opinion to that end.

I don’t see anyone crying, just pointing out that it’s a farce that Worcester have been given such a paltry target.

They were still favourites at 71/5 because the run rate was so small.
Click to expand...

You're having a proper whinge on like.

We didn't bat well enough to set them a big target, they'd have been chasing about 220 if we'd lasted 50 overs.
 
Last edited:
hudson88 said:
14 from 18 with 4 wickets left
Click to expand...

Cake walk, as it has been from the start.

smoker said:
Anyone coming round to my view Matt Salisbury is a pie chucker?



You're having a proper whinge on like.

We didn't bat well enough to set them a big target, they'd have been chasing about 220 if we'd lasted 50 overs.
Click to expand...

Would you say 220 is harder to score than 152?

I’m criticising a poor method, some would say it’s good for debate - you know, the kind of thing forums exist for.

Some would also say you’re having a whinge on about Salisbury, a bloke who could have been considered to have been a revelation last season.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
Cake walk, as it has been from the start.



Would you say 220 is harder to score than 152?

I’m criticising a poor method, some would say it’s good for debate - you know, the kind of thing forums exist for.

Some would also say you’re having a whinge on about Salisbury, a bloke who could have been considered to have been a revelation last season.
Click to expand...

220/50 is easier to score than 152/24, absolutely.

I'm not butthurt about Salisbury, like you are about DLS. i just don't think he's all that good from what I've seen of him.
 
Pity the weather intervened but Durham where unlikely to win that from 114/4 from 28 overs.
Iam more positive about one or two of the younger players performing in this competition than the result today. It certainly looks like all the talk around the club for the last 2 or 3 years about Carse being a genuine talent are beginning to show signs and he hasn't even had a bat yet.
 
smoker said:
220/50 is easier to score than 152/24, absolutely.

I'm not butthurt about Salisbury, like you are about DLS. i just don't think he's all that good from what I've seen of him.
Click to expand...

Butthurt?! Are you 12?

I think more people on here feel the game was a farce because of DL than those who do not.

Regarding Salisbury, he’s had two good games and one bad in this competition. Last season he was largely a revelation. Not sure I get where you’re coming from. Perhaps what you’ve seen of him hasn’t been enough to make a reasoned judgement.
 
brandon said:
Butthurt?! Are you 12?

I think more people on here feel the game was a farce because of DL than those who do not.

Regarding Salisbury, he’s had two gofod games and one bad in this competition. Last season he was largely a revelation. Not sure I get where you’re coming from. Perhaps what you’ve seen of him hasn’t been enough to make a reasoned judgement.
Click to expand...
Aye it's all very balanced on here and absolutely no bias towards Durham.
 
Decent effort, would have fancied us over 50 overs.

Short format might be best for us at the min with our inexperience, tend to get exposed over 4 days.

Some encouraging signs from certain players though, 2 wins out of 3.
 
wayne entwhistle no9 said:
Oh thanks for the compliment unbiased one.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Can you imagine if you were a Worcestershire fan and asked to chase 180+ in 24 overs in response to our laboured batting effort?

Three games in a row our top order has prodded and poked their way through the power play. Just play a pinch hitter FFS.
 

Back
Top